Why America Is Losing the Drug War

i 656 June 9,1988 WHY AMERICA IS LOSING THE DR UG WM
INTRODUCTION Despite dramatic increases in resources devoted to
tackling the drug problem, the use of illegal drugs in the United
States remains widespread. To make matters worse, policies aimed
primarily at reducing the supply of drugs are producin g such
undesirable side effects as crime, corruption, and strained
relations with other countries. The cost of the war against drugs
is now so substantial, and the results so disappointing, that
commentators across the political spectrum from conservative author
William F. Buckley to Washington's liberal mayor Marion Barry have
even called for the radical measure of legalizing some or all
drugs.

Calls for legalization reflect the frustration felt by many
Americans. The use of drugs in America has reached ep idemic
proportions. About 23 million Ameri am, or one in ten, use an
illegal drug at least once a month; six million of these use
cocaine. Perhaps most disturbing, drug use is most prevalent among
young adults 5 Costs to Society. Proponents of legalizatio n ,
however, ignore the costs imposed by drug users on society, costs
that would escalate if drugs were made legal. Up to 15 percent of
highway fatalities involve drug use, and drugs are a major factor
in crime. Studies by the National Institute of Justice f ind that
as many as three-quarters of individuals arrested for a 1 See
Saundra Torry Call to Debate Legalization of DN~S Becomes Louder
The Warhingrort Post, May 15 1988 2 US. Department of Health and
Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Nati o nal
Hoiiseliold Survey on DtugAbuse: Popukation Estimates I985
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1987 pp 10 and 14.
crimes in some cities test positive for drugs. And each.heroid
user, the Institute has found on average costs other Americans $
14,000 in burglaries and other crimes Young Alarmed. Public opinion
polls indicate clearly that Americans view drug use with alarm.
Drug use is the number one problem identified by high school
students and their parents? In a recent survey of "young profe s
sionals" published in Rolling Stone magazine 26 percent of
respondents said they were concerned about having someone close to
them involved with a serious drug problem Polls also find strong
support for tough actions to deal with drug use. In contrast wit h
the more relaxed attitude of the 1960s and 1970s, two-pds of
Americans today believe drug possession should be subject to
criminal penalties. Furthermore, no state has decriminalized drug
possession since Nebraska did so in 19

While there is strong support for fighting drugs, there is less
consensus on what steps actually would be effective. Should law
enforcement focus mainly on trying to pr event drugs from entering
the U.S for example, on the sale and distribution of drugs inside
the U.S or on the drug user herself or himself?

At one time, disagreement over these questions was
understandable. Now, however evidence is mounting that if additi
onal resources are to be committed to fight drug use, the resources
best would be used in efforts to reduce demand, rather than on
trying to block supply. The record shows that despite dramatic
increases in seizures of drugs entering the U.S. and in convi c
tions of drug traffickers, there has been virtually no effect on
the availability of drugs on America's streets. Apparently, as long
as there is strong demand enormous potential profits will attract
suppliers to serve the market. Efforts to attack supply, though
important, thus seem futile unless accompanied by actions to reduce
demand New Strategies. In recent months, several members of
Congress and the Reagan Administration have worked to develop
"demand-side" strategies to catch and punish drug users. T h e
Administration, for instance, has adopted a ''zero tolerance"
approach aimed at eliminating drugs from the federal workplace. And
it has advocated wider use of private 3 drug abuse as the worst
problem facing the public schools as well as in society gen e rally
See David A. Clark and Alec M. Gallup The 19th Annual Gallup Poll
of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools Phi Deltu
Koppon, August 27,1987, p. 28, The Downside of Raising Children:
Peds at the Gates The Philip Morris Family Survey, April 1987, p.
17; and "What Do You Think is the Most Important Problem Facing
this Country Today CBSINew Yo limes Poll, October 30,1986 4 David
Sheff Portrait of a Generation Rolling Stone, May 15,1988, p. 46 5
See "Down on Drugs: A Newsweek Pol Newme August 1 1 ,1986 6 "Teens
Approve of Drug-Screening Programs The Gallup Youth Survey, May
14,1986, and "Work Poll How We Feel About Our Jobs USA T&fuy,
June 17,1987 See "Teens See Drug Abuse as No. 1 Problem The Gallup
Youth Survey, August 5,1987. "Parents cite 2 se c tor drug testing,
tough enforcement of the laws against possession, and more
aggressive use of federal statutes allowing confiscation of the
assets of drug offenders. In addition Attorney General Edwin Meese
recently asked federal prosecutors o work with s tates to seek the
revocation of drivers' licenses for drug possession offenses. 5
Congress also is considering demand-related actions, including
revoking drivers' licenses withholding federal contracts from
employers that fail to make good faith efforts a t providing a
drug-free workplace, and mandating'drug testing for operators of
common carriers, such as passenger airlines. The House Republican
Task Force recently issued a report calling for denying student
loans and other federal ben fits to convicted d r ug users and
linking the scale of civil fines to the income of drug users. 8 No
Impact on Demand. Despite these important initiatives, most
congressional legislation currently in preparation still devotes
far too little attention to demand-side policies. R ather than
considering penalties for drug users, Congress appears to be
favoring more "supply-side" measures which do little to crack down
on users. For example approximately $1.5 billion of the $2.1
billion in increased funding proposed by Senator Dennis DeConcini,
the Arizona Democrat, would be devoted to international assistance
interdiction, and "public health" rehabilitation programs. Many
lawmakers wish to combine these approaches with popular window
dressing, such as the creation of a "drug czar Thi s legislation
probably would increase the arrests and convictions of drug
suppliers destroy more drugs in foreign fields, and seize more
drugs at the border. It is very unlikely however, that this would
cut drug use significantly. Moreover, because these m easures would
have no impact on the demand for drugs, and thus would not reduce
the potential profits of drug trafficking, they would only
exacerbate the side effects of current drug enforcement efforts
crime, corruption, and foreign policy disruptions.

By contrast, a strong demand-side policy, based on the zero
tolerance principle, could reduce significantly the number of drug
users, and thus the demand for drugs. Such a strategy also would
reduce potential profits from drug trafficking, and thus limit th e
crime corruption, and international problems associated with
current drug control efforts 7 See Ruth Marcus and Laura Parker
Vehicle Seizures Stepped Up in Drug War: The Washington Post May
10,1988 and Michael Hedges, "Meese Would Keep Drug Users on Foot
The Washington 'liines, May 12 1988 8 See Jerry Lewis, Mickey
Edwards, and Bill McCollum, "Preliminary Report of the Republican
Task Force,"

May 23,1988 3 TRENDS IN THE PREVALENCE OF DRUG USE According to
the federal government's National Institute on Dru g Abuse (NIDA
about one in ten Americans 23 million currently use illegal drugs
at least monthly. About 18 million people use marijuana; about six
million use cocaine? Use is highest among the young: 22 percent of
the population aged 18 to 25 uses marijua na, for example, compared
with only 6 percent of the population over 25 It is estimated that
25 percent of all high school students use illegal drugs at least
once a month."

While there are variations in incidence among different groups,
they are much smaller than generally believed. The share of high
school seniors using drugs, for instance, is only about 20 percent
higher among those going to college than among non-college
bound."

Use in the large cities is only about 20 percent higher than in
suburban and rural areas.12 Use among black Americans is only about
30 percent higher than use among the PO ulation as a whole, while
use by Hispanics is slightly lower than the averag e for the
country Doctors and Truck Drivers. The data also suggest that drug
use is fairly evenly distributed throughout American occupations. A
1986 Nav England Joud of #edcine article reports that more than 40
percent of doctors in hospitals use illicit drugs. A 19y study of
illegal druguse by truck drivers found that 17 percent tested
positive for drugs.

And two-thirds of a group of 1986 applicants for the Fairfax
County, Virginia, police force were rejected after showing evidence
of cocaine use.16 E Th e evidence regarding trends in drug use,
however, is ambiguous. Annual surveys of high school students
suggest that drug use (at least once per month) peaked in 1978, at
39 percent, compared with the 25 percent today. On the other hand,
high school cocain e use is above the 1978 level, even after a
fairly dramatic decline in 19

87. In addition, use of the 9 See Note 2 above 10 See U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug
Abuse, 77ie 1987 National High School Survey, January 1 988, Figure
8 11 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institute on Drug Abuse, National Trendr in Dnrg Use and Related
Factors AmongAmerican High School Students and YoungAdults,
1975-1986 Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office , 1987 pp.
36,394 and 76 12 Ibid, pp. 38,44-45, and 83 13 U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse,
Nahimal Hoiiseliold Survey on DnrgAbuse: Population Estimates
1985,1987, pp. 10-11 and 14-15 14 William E. McCauliff, "
Psychoactive Drug use Among Practicing Physicians and Medical
Students The New England Journal of Medicine, September 25,1986, p.
805 15 See Richard D. Blomberg, Adrian K. Lund, David E Preusser,
and Alan E Williams Drug Use by Tractor-Trailer Drivers Ins u rance
Institute for Highway Safety, Washington, D.C June 1987, pp. 8 and
19 16 See Patricia Davis Suspected Drug Use Thins Ranks of Police
Applicants ne Washingon Pmr September 28,1986. hallucinogen LSD now
is rising after a period of long decline. And us e of inhalants
including amyl and butyl nitrites, has more than doubled from the
late 197Os.l7 While the most recent official data for the general
population are three years old (The National Institute of Drug
Abuse will release figures based on a 1988 sur v ey early next year
the trends appear similar to those for high school students.
Overall drug use is down from the late 1970s, but nevertheless
remains widespread Drugs and Crime. That drugs increasingly are
related to crime is evident from drug tests appl ied to serious
criminals arrested in Washington, D.C and New York City in 1984 and
19

86. The National Institute of Justice reports that nearly
three-quarters of all those arrested in the District of Columbia
tested positive for drug use in 1986, compared with 56 percent in
19

84. In New York City, the percentage of those arrested who
tested positive for cocaine nearly doubled, from 42 percent in 1984
to 80 percent in 1986.l 0 If estimating current levels of drug use
is difficult, projecting future trends is even more so. Yet the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services attempts this.
Reviewing the data in its 1987 Triennial Report to Congress on Drug
Abuse and Drug Abuse Research, the Department concludes that
"Extrapolating from these data, it is pos s ible that the overall
prevalgce of use among high school seniors may continue to increase
over the next several years SOCIETAL COSTS OF DRUG USE Drug use
exacts a substantial and rising cost from American society. While
some of these costs are related to e fforts to enforce the drug
laws, the direct costs imposed on America by drug users are also
substantial. For example, consider the number of drug-related
deaths reported by the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN). The DAWN
system draws data 17 See The 1987 N ational High School Senior
Survey, op. cit Tables 7-9 18 See "NIDA Capsules: Overview of the
1985 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse National Institute on
Drug Abuse, Washington, D.C October 23,1986 19 Mary G. Graham
Controlling Drug Abuse and Crime: A Research Update NZJ Reports
Dnigs und Crime, MmlilApril1987, p. 2 20 See US. Department of
Health and Human Services, Second Triennial Report to Congress on
DrugAbilse and DrugAbuse Resemh (Washington, D.C Government
Printing Office, 1987 p. 18 5 from o n ly 117 counties, and does
not include deaths from drug-related crime. Yeteven with these
restrictions, DAWN'S data show reported deaths from drugs rose from
2,825 in 1981 to 4,138 in 1986, an increase of 46 percent The DAWN
system also monitors admissions at 744 of the nation's 5,000
emergency rooms. While the overall number of drug-related emergency
room admissions remained roughly constant between 198 1 and 1986,
at about 120,000, the number of cocaine-related emergency room
admissions rose by more than f ive times, to over 24,000 Link to
Suicide Other direct costs of drug abuse include increased highway
fatalities workplace accidents, and teenage suicides. The U.S.
Department of Transportation estimates that 10 to 15 percent of all
highway fatalities invo l ve drug use Other studies find that drug
users are three times as likely to be involved in on-the-job
accidents, are absent from work twice as often, and on average
incur three times the level of medicine costs as non-users.%And
virtually all experts see a strong link between teenage suicide and
use of illegal drugs.

Unlike other components of the costs of drug use, the link
between drugs and crime is well documented. A 1983 National
Institute of Justice study found that each heroin user imposes
costs on s ociety amounting to an average of $14,000 per year in
terms of burglary theft, and other non-drug crimes alone And a
study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 20 pfrcent
of all convicted murderers admit they were using drugs at the time
of th e homicide. 7 Adding together such costs, the Research
Triangle Institute, an independent research group in North
Carolina, placed the total economic costs of drug abuse on society
at approximately $60 billion in 198& The Department of Justice
estimates th a t figure rose to as much as $100 billion by 1986
pain and suffering associated with such things as drug-related
deaths These estimates do not, of course, attempt to measure 21
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on
Drug Abuse, 1981 Annual RepH Date Fmm the Drug Abuse Wming Network,
Series 1, No. 1, p. 43 and 1986 Annual Data: Data fmm the Dnig
Abuse Wming New Series 1, No. 6, p. 81 22 hid, pp. 22 and 26,
respectively 23 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffi c Safety Administration The Incidence of Driving Under the
Influence of Drugs 1985: An Update of the State of Knowledge
December 1985, p. Vi 24 The fvst two statistics are from Mark S.
Gold, M.D Peter Bensinger, Arnold Washton, Ph.D and Lawrence
Chilnick, Drugs in the WoMIace, Facts vs. Myths (New York: Random
House, 1986 p.

4. The third fact is from Peter Bensinger, "Drugs in the
Workplace: Employers' Rights and Responsibilities," Washington
Legal Foundatioflexas Division, 1984, p.

1. All three statisti cs are cited in Richard K. Willard Remarks
before the Small Business Legislative Council November 21,1986, p.
4 25 See, for example, Constance Holden Youth Suicide: New Research
Focuses on a Growing Social Problem Science, August 22,1986, pp.
839-841 26 B e rnard A. Gropper Probing the Links Between Drugs and
Crime U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
February 1985, p. 5 27 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics Prisoners and Drugs March 1983, p. 4 28 See
Henrick J. Ha r wood, et Ol Economic Costs ofAIcohd and DrugAbuse
and Mental Illness (Research Triangle Institute, June 1984) and
Willard, op. cit., p. 1 6 0 TRENDS IN POLICY Recent federal policy
regarding drug use has concentrated on three objectives 1) Reducing
supply by attacking the production, transportation, wholesaling,
and retailing system 2) Reducing demand through education and by
influencing public opinion; and 3) Providing rehabilitation and
treatment, on a voluntary basis, for drug users Resources devoted
to all three areas have grown dramatically since 1981, as shown in
the table below Increase in Federal Drug Policy Outlays, 1981-1988
in current millions Category 1981 1988 e Drug Law Enforcement 806.0
2,492.5 Drug Abuse Prevention 117.0 454.2 Drug Abuse Tre a tment
205.8 370.2 TOTAL 1,128.8 3,3 16.9 Source: Office of Management and
Budget Attacking the Supply of Drugs Percent Change 209 288 80 194
At first glance, the strategy of interrupting supplies might seem
to be successful. A doubling of Customs Service a nd Coast Guard
outlays between 1981 and 1986 for drug interdiction activities, for
instance, resulted in a sixteen-fold increase in seizures of
cocaine, which rose from 1.7 tons in 1981 to 27.2 tons in 1986.29
Similarly, beefed up domestic enforcement eff o rts have led to a
large rise in the numl,er of arrests and convictions for drug
offenses. From 1982 to 1986, the number of Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) drug convictions doubled, from about 6,000 to
about 12,000, while the number of FBI conviction s rose from just
43 to 2,7

Stiffer Penalties. Courts also have been tougher. The average
sentence for DEA convictions rose from 51 months in 1982 to 61
months in 19

86. The avera ge penalty for cocaine offenses rose by 35
percent, from 48 months to 65 rnonths?l Statutory changes contained
in the 1984 Comprehensive Crime Act and the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse
Act have resulted in large increases in the confiscation of assets
of drug offe n ders. These rose from 100 million in 1983 to $165
million in 1987, and this year are expected to exceed $270 million
30 The strategy of limiting the supply of drugs also has included
foreign eradication efforts such as "Operation Blast Furnace in
Bolivia, and increased "street-level" enforcement by local police,
such as "Operation Clean Sweep" in the District of Columbia. Other
actions include steps to prevent money laundering and increased
penalties for use of minors in drug dealing Foreign Production Up.
In total, the federal government will spend nearly $2.5 billion on
drug law enforcement in fiscal 1988, up sharply from $806 million
in fiscal 19

81. Yet drugs continue to be widely available throughout the
U.S. Foreign eradication efforts have not preven ted increases in
foreign production. Said the State Department 1987 report on the
international drug trade narcotics production was up all over the
world."33 Nor have interdiction efforts reduced substantially the
amount of drugs entering the U.S. A recen t Rand Corporation study
estimates that cocaine imports more $lpn doubled between 1981 and
1985 while marijuana imports remained roughly constant Arrests of
pushers and street-level efforts also have not made much of a dent
in the supply of drugs. A Depart m ent of Health and Human Services
study concludes that Substantial evidence exists to suggest that
cocaine is becoming more widely available throughout the nited
States and that its price has been going down while its purity.has
been going up."3 Y Thus, re c ent history provides very convincing
evidence that efforts to limit supply, by themselves, do not
substantially reduce the availability of drugs nor significantly
inhibit drug use 30 See National Drug Policy Board, Feded Drug
Enfomement hpss Report 1986, A pril 1987 31 hid, p. 39 32 See
Lindsey D. Stellwagen Use of Forfeiture Sanctions in Drug Cases
U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice, July
1985, p. 1 and Appendix to the Budget of the US. Government
(Washington D.C U.S. Government Print i ng Office, 1988), p. 1-011
33 U.S. State Department, "International Narcotics Control, 1987
Press Release, May 1987 34 See Reuter, Crawford, and Cave, op. cit
p. 74 35 See Second Triennial Report to Conpss on DrugAbuse and
DrugAbuse Reseatch, op. cit p. 1 8 8 Drug Education The second area
of policy emphasis in recent years has been drug education,
designed to persuade young Americans not to try drugs, and to
persuade current users to stop. While the evidence is not
conclusive, these programs do not appear to have been very
effective in reducing the demand for drugs.

Federal spending on drug education and prevention programs rose
from $1 17 million in fiscal 1981 to a projected $454 million in
fiscal 1988, a 288 percent boost. By far the largest increase has
been in federal assistance to state and local school distric t s
for in-school drug education prwam, which jumped from $2.9 million
in fiscal 1981 to $131 million in the current year Just Say No More
significant than the rapid rise in spending has been the heightened
emphasis on education and prevention. For example, most observers
would agree that the Just Say No" campaign originated by Mrs.
Reagan has altered the entire tone of the drug debate by promoting
the concept of "zero tolerance And the Department of Education now
plays a central role by disseminating inform a tion about drug
education programs through such publications as what Works: Schools
Without Dnrgs." These federal activities, in turn, have encouraged
the private sector to develop information programs such as those
sponsored by the Partnership for a Drug Free America.

Laudable and important as these programs are, the available
evidence fails to document that these efforts are reducing drug
demand significantly A 1987 report by the National Institutes of
Justice supports this finding, noting that "there is no consistent
evidence that drug education programs either decrease or increase
the likelihood that students will use drugs The report also notes
that "programs that address only the negative aspects of drug use,
especially those that exaggerate these as p ects, tend to be
disbelieved. The unfortunate result is that young people may become
more rather than less likely to experiment with drugs."3g This 1987
report confirmed a 1980 review of the available studies. on drug
education which found that "by far th e largest number of studies
have found no effects of drug education on use Maryland Success. In
these otherwise pessimistic findings, there is evidence that
appropriately designed drug prevention efforts, including
enforcement of reasonable but strict pena l ties, can reduce drug
use in the schools. The successful programs described in what
Works, for example, are founded on efforts to detect drug users and
a commitment to impose tough penalties for those detected. In Anne
Arundel County, Maryland, for 36 Fig u res provided by the Office
of Management and Budget 37 U.S. Department of Education, what
Wonks: Schadr Wilhour Drugs (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1987 38 Michael S. Goodstadt Drug Education U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1987, p 3 39 Ibid, p. 2
40 See DJ. Hanson Drug Education: Does it Work in F.R. Scarpetti
and S.K. Datesman, Dmgs und Yourh Culm (Sage Publications, 1980 p.
263 9 example e school system has put in place a policy calling for
greaterinvolvement o n the part of the parents, as well as school
officials and local police If a student is found to possess drugs,
the police are called and the individual is suspended. To be
allowed to return to school, the student, along with his or her
parents, must agre e to participate in some aspect of the
district's Alternative Drug Program. The result has been a 60
percent drop in the number of drug offenses Rehabilitation and
Treatment Rehabilitation and treatment is the third key element in
today's drug policy. Fede r al spending on treatment programs has
nearly doubled since 1981, from $205 billion to $370 billion in
1988 But as with tougher law enforcement and increased education
efforts, the evidence is persuasive that current drug treatment and
rehabilitation effor t s are not very effective in reducing drug
use. A recent Rand Corporation study of drug treatment programs in
the District of Columbia found that the percentage of drug users
successfully completing rehabilitation programs ranged from a
maximum of 50 perce n t for marijuana users to a minimum of 20
percent for heroin The study noted even those who initially succeed
in treatment often slip back into drug use. Nationwide studies
indicate that a majority of people treated for either heroin or
heavy cocaine abuse were again using drugs on at least a weekly
basis within a year after leaving treatment.IA2 Containing
Expansion. While the history of drug treatment programs is not
encouraging there is some hope for treatment approaches currently
under development. For e xample low-cost, private outpatient
programs such as Narcotics Anonymous have shown increased success
rates relative to earlier programs," and supervised
probationhehabilitation programs, which rely on urine testing to
monitor use, have been shown to be e ffective in rehabilitating
drug offenders.44 Yet these programs can only help a minority of
drug users.

Rehabilitation and treatment can reach only those users who
choose or are forced to undergo treatment Despite the outlook for
improvements in these prog rams, rehabilitation and treatment are
by definition only effective in preventing continuing use by
current users. As Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates recently
asserted There has to be some recognition that rehabilitation has
not worked. It will work o n some, but it's not going to work on a
total of 23 million that's why it's so important that we get to
this generation so that tha 23 million doesn't expand into 40
million in the next generation, and it could easily."4 5 41 "Drug
Use and Drug Programs i n the Washington Metropolitan Area: An
Assessment Executive Summary),.Greater Washington Research Center,
February 1988, p. 23 42 hid p. 20 43 See Robert L. DuPont,
DrugAbuse Research: An Agndu forAction, A.Report by a Committee of
the Institute for Behavi o r and Health, Inc 1987, pp. 7-9 44 See
Billie S. Erwin and Lawrence A. Bennett New Dimensions in
Probation: Georgia's Experience with Intensive Probation US.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1987
45 Testimony of LQS Angela Pol i ce Chief Daryl Gates before the
Board of Supervisors, County of Los Angela, March 29,1988, p. 20 10
CONCLUSION After nearly a decade of concerted efforts to reduce
drug use, there is no sign of America's drug problem being solved.
The costs of drug use ar e large and growing.

Current policies, which have sought to suppress supply while
offering education and treatment to drug users, have not been
effective in reducing drug use A careful examination of the impact
of federal interdiction programs shows that i ncreased funding
during the 1980s has paid off in terms of dramatic increases in the
amounts of drugs seized, the number of arrests, and other measures
of enforcement success. These efforts, however, apparently have
been more than matched by increased smu g gling activity. Estimates
of the volume of drugs 'entering the U.S. are rising rapidly More,
Cheaper Drugs. State and local governments also have stepped up
their law enforcement activities, but these, too, have not reduced
street-level availability of dr ugs.

The supply is rising while prices are falling.

Efforts to cut demand through education and rehabilitation also
do not appear to have met with much success. Despite some evidence
that new techniques may be more effective than those used in the
past, t here is, regrettably, little reason to believe that these
programs can ever produce substantial, dramatic reductions in drug
use.

Based on these findings, policymakers seem to face two options:
adopt a new strategy for Winning the war on drugs, or admit defeat
and legalize drugs.

Proposals for legalizing some or all drugs amount to an
admission of defeat and invite social catastrophe. Even proponents
of legalization cannot deny the societal cost of drug use in terms
of broken lives; they can only argue th at the costs of fighting
the war outweigh the benefits. If America's efforts remain no more
effective than they are today, the proponents of legalization might
well be right Zero Tolerance Alternatively, rather than admitting
failure in a war that America must win, policymakers should
consider adopting a set of policies that could substantially reduce
the demand for drugs Increased law enforcement, mandatory penalties
for users, and application of the ''zero tolerance approach in
workplaces, schools, highw a ys, and prisons constitute a promising
strategy which so far has not been tried on a large scale In
implementing a zero tolerance" approach, however, it is crucial to
appreciate that the targets of demand reduction efforts mainly will
be average Americans , who hold jobs, raise families, and
participate in mainstream society. For these drug users, it is
neither appropriate nor necessary to impose long jail sentences or
other draconian penalties.

Indeed, excessively stringent penalties easily could result in
selective enforcement, as police, prosecutors, and judges recoiled
from applying them to all but the worst offenders.

Based on the virtually non-existent level of enforcement and
prosecution of current laws against drug possession, it is even
possible th at current penalties may already be viewed by many as
inappropriately stringent 11 Thus "zero tolerance" must be tempered
with a second principle: measured response Penalties should be set
to achieve the twin goals of deterrence and rehabilitation. For av
e rage working Americans, threatening to suspend a driver's
license, and requiring participation in a rehabilitation program as
a condition of reapplication, likely would be an effective
deterrent. Moreover, such a penalty would pursue the goal of
rehabilit a tion without imposing huge costs on society Protecting
Civil Liberties Zero tolerance" also must.be pursued with due
regard for civil liberties. Federal requirements for drug testing,
for example, are neither efficient nor wise if the net is cast so
wide a s to impose on millions of clearly innocent citizens. As in
other civil liberties matters, there must be a balance between
society's goal of reducing drug use and the threat to individual
privacy. In common carrier transportation and prisons there is both
a societal interest in reducing drug use and a government
responsibility, since the federal govekent either owns or
administers these areas of the economy In public schools and
colleges, and in the private workplace, there is a clear societal
stake in red ucing drug use. But the federal responsibility here is
less clear. In these areas, the federal role should be to give
moral support and legal discretion to those who wish to undertake
drug testing.

The evidence indicates that drug use can be cut when reaso nably
aggressive enforcement efforts are combined with "measured
response" penalties against the drug user. Future policy thus
should focus heavily on the "demand side" of the drug equation, and
not simply beef up interdiction. A c'arefully designed "zero
tolerance" strategy would enable the U.S at last to turn the tide
in the war on drugs.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."

Sign up to start your free subscription today!

Sorry! Your form had errors:

About The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.

Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More